Saturday, August 31, 2013

Secretary of State John Kerry opened his speech Friday by describing
the horrors victims of the chemical weapon attack suffered, including
twitching, spasms and difficulty breathing.

Photo: Riana via Wikimedia Commons

Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph
used by the BBC illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead
bodies covered in white shrouds. The photo was meant to depict victims
who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons via Assad’s
regime.

However, it was later exposed the photograph used had been taken in
2003 in Iraq. It was not related to Syrian deaths whatsoever and was later retracted.

The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.

The decision came after UK Parliament voted no to military action against Syria Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.

Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks
have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta
killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals
that the “international aid group Doctors Without Borders reported 355
people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated
figure cited by Kerry.”

The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence”
Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be
“common sense.”

He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, unconscious and
horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted
responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.

While Kerry blamed Syria for blocking and delaying the UN chemical weapons investigation, an Infowars report revealed
the “Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that
‘there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the
affected areas to conduct their mission,’ a clear warning (or a blatant
threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely.”

“Even when Syria allowed UN inspectors to enter the affected region, the Obama administration responded that it was ‘too late,’ and that the evidence could have been destroyed,” reported Infowars.

Unsurprisingly, Kerry failed to mention US’s true position of funding
the Syrian rebels, leaving the uninformed public incompetent to form an
accurate opinion.

The good news is for the first time in over two hundred years a
“British Prime Minister lost a vote on war since 1782, when Parliament
effectively conceded American independence by voting against further
fighting to crush the colony’s rebellion,” reported Reuters.

Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Someone
wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly.
Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it
roughly means "to whose benefit?" The key to figuring out who is really
behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.
If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will
not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it
will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not
be good for Hezbollah. The party that stands to benefit the most is
Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting. They
have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so
far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the
Assad regime. Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the
U.S. military. If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the
two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each
other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other. In
such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the
happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well. For example, it is well-known
that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf,
through Syria and into Europe. That is why Qatar has also been pouring
billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.
So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the
Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?
Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.
Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.
The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit
on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?

Maybe.
Let's hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or
American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv,
the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in
another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials
are expressing "serious reservations" about attacking Syria according
to the Washington Post...

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against
Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S.
military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a
rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to
intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust
onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy,
according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging
from captains to a four-star general.

For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.
If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control. But
they would be even worse than Assad. They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

This war would not be good for Israel either. I have seen a number
of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about
the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.

Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S.
attacks Syria. If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel
Aviv, Israel will respond.
And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.

And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost
certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict. And right now Hezbollah
has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.

So all of those "pro-Israel" websites out there that are getting
excited about war with Syria should think twice. If you really are
"pro-Israel", you should not want this war. It would not be good for
Israel.

If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace. This war
would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel. Even if Assad is
overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even
more anti-Israel than Assad was.

War is hell. Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one. Why
would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled
or Syrian blood spilled?

If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it.
Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels. At
this point, even CNN is openly admitting this...

It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle
weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to
prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.

And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country. The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad...

Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who
hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own
interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or
indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must
pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially,
those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out
acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is
synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both
the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military
intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of "defense
readiness" from "five" to "two" in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen...

Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President
Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in
anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar
with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against
Assad's government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus
suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia's defense readiness has been raised to "two" from
"five", a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters.
"One" is the highest level of alert.

And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?
According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis...

Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to
Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible
for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have
blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were
the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons
provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

And this is a guy that isn't just fresh out of journalism school. As Paul Joseph Watson noted, "Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News."

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak's bombshell findings...

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons
were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father
of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died
in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were
provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha,
describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like
a “huge gas bottle.”
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,”
complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were
chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give
them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She,
like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of
retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks
stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin
with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia
doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if
the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist
attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the
article stated.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year.
The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are
controlled by us,” Saudi Prince allegedly told Vladimir Putin.

Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down
and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them. Zero Hedge
published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi
intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President
Vladimir Putin...

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring
us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all
over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on
promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The
terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the
Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were
terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an
example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in
the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The
Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled
by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction
without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare
us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no
role or influence in Syria’s political future.”
It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime."
Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some
Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if
anything, they knew about that.
But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the
dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat
by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned
that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to
intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he
appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on
Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their
fears for Egypt's future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the
dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion
that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the
only currently available choice given that the political settlement
ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be
very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to
continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps.
This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Are you starting to get the picture?
The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.
And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.
According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.
And according to Politico,
more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding
that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria...

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled
their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote.
House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent
to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action
takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than
150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them
also signed Rigell’s letter.

But Obama has already made it perfectly clear that he has no intention of putting this before Congress.

He is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress or the American people stop him.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Posted By yihan On August 29, 2013 @ 12:54 pm In Red Title Front Page,Tile | No Comments

Onslaught to begin when UN inspectors leavePaul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 29, 2013
A reporter with Israel’s most widely read newspaper has been told by
defense establishment officials that a US-led attack on Syria will begin
on Saturday and end when Barack Obama meets Vladimir Putin on
Wednesday.

Despite an apparent softening in rhetoric as British
Prime Minister David Cameron faces a parliamentary revolt over military
intervention, in addition to reports that the intelligence against
Assad’s regime is by no means a “slam dunk,” Israel Hayom reporter Amir
Mizroch tweets that the attack will begin on Saturday immediately after
UN inspectors have left the country.

Inspectors had initially planned to leave on Sunday after concluding
their investigation but their departure a day early has increased
speculation that air strikes are imminent.

British and American military might is now fully in
place and prepared for strikes which experts say will take the form of
Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles fired from warships or submarines.

Mizroch also highlights remarks made by former Mossad
director Danny Yatom, who says that the apparent delay on green lighting
military strikes is only so Bashar Al-Assad can’t use the UN inspectors
as human shields.

Mizroch was also told that Israel sent Assad a message
via Russia threatening that if Syria attempts to attack Israel, Damascus
will be targeted and Assad’s regime will be toppled.

This threat was made despite attempts by Gulf nations to
secure a promise from Israel that it would act with restraint if Syria
attempts retaliatory strikes against Israel in response to a western
onslaught. Israel replied that it would act with restraint, but only if
aggression against it “did not exceed reasonable bounds.”

In a related story,
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro has promised a “strong and
serious response,” to Assad’s alleged chemical atrocity last week,
despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

Will Boehner Stop Our Rogue President?

Pat Buchanan

8/30/2013 12:01:00 AM - Pat Buchanan

The next 72 hours will be decisive in the career of the speaker of the House. The alternatives he faces are these:
John Boehner can, after "consultation," give his blessing to Barack
Obama's decision to launch a war on Syria, a nation that has neither
attacked nor threatened us.
Or Boehner can instruct Obama that, under our Constitution, in the
absence of an attack on the United States, Congress alone has the
authority to decide whether the United States goes to war.
As speaker, he can call the House back on Monday to debate, and
decide, whether to authorize the war Obama is about to start. In the
absence of a Congressional vote for war, Boehner should remind the
president that U.S. cruise missile strikes on Syria, killing soldiers
and civilians alike, would be the unconstitutional and impeachable acts
of a rogue president.
Moreover, an attack on Syria would be an act of stupidity.
Why this rush to war? Why the hysteria? Why the panic?
Syria and Assad will still be there two weeks from now or a month
from now, and we will know far more then about what happened last week.
Understandably, Obama wants to get the egg off his face from having
foolishly drawn his "red line" against chemical weapons, and then
watching Syria, allegedly, defy His Majesty. But saving Obama's face
does not justify plunging his country into another Mideast war.
Does Obama realize what a fool history will make of him if he is
stampeded into a new war by propaganda that turns out to be yet another
stew of ideological zealotry and mendacity?
As of today, we do not know exactly what gas was used around
Damascus, how it was delivered, who authorized it and whether President
Bashar Assad ever issued such an order.
Yet, one Wall Street Journal columnist is already calling on Obama to assassinate Assad along with his family.
Do we really want back into that game? When John F. Kennedy and
Robert Kennedy explored the assassination option with Fidel Castro,
blowback came awfully swift in Dallas.
Again, what is the urgency of war now if we are certain we are right?
What do we lose by waiting for more solid evidence, and then presenting
our case to the Security Council?
Kennedy did that in the Cuban missile crisis. U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson made the case. And the world saw we were right.
If, in the face of incontrovertible proof, Russia and China veto
sanctions, the world will see that. Then let John Kerry make his case to
Congress and convince that body to authorize war, if he can.
But if Obama cannot convince Congress, we cannot -- and ought not --
go to war. The last thing America needs is an unnecessary,
unconstitutional war in that God-forsaken region that both Congress and
the country oppose.
Indeed, the reports about this gas attack on Syrian civilians have
already begun to give off the distinct aroma of a false-flag operation.
Assad has offered U.N. inspectors secure access to where gas was
allegedly used. It is the rebels who seem not to want too deep or long
an investigation.
Our leaders should ask themselves. If we are stampeded into this war,
whose interests are served? For it is certainly not Assad's and
certainly not America's.
We are told Obama intends to hit Syria with cruise missiles for just a
few days to punish Assad and deter any future use of gas, not to topple
his regime. After a few hundred missiles and a thousand dead Syrians,
presumably, we call it off.
Excuse me, but as Casey Stengel said, "Can't anybody here play this game?"
Nations that start wars and attack countries, as Gen. Tojo and Adm.
Yamamoto can testify, do not get to decide how wide the war gets, how
long it goes on or how it ends.
If the United States attacks Damascus and Syria's command and
control, under the rules of war Syria would be within its rights to
strike Washington, the Pentagon and U.S. bases all across the Middle
East.
Does Obama really want to start a war, the extent and end of which he
cannot see, that is likely to escalate, as its promoters intend and
have long plotted, into a U.S. war on Iran? Has the election in Iran of a
new president anxious to do a deal with America on Iran's nuclear
program caused this panic in the War Party?
If we think the markets reacted badly to a potential U.S. strike on
Syria, just wait for that big one to start. Iran has a population the
size of Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq combined, and sits astride the
Straits of Hormuz through which the free world's oil flows.
And who will be our foremost fighting ally in Syria should we attack
Assad's army? The Al-Nusra Front, an arm of al-Qaida and likely
successor to power, should Assad fall.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

RSIS presents the following commentary The Rising Challenge of Food Security by Barry Desker. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward anycomments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, atRSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 161/2013 dated 29 August 2013

The Rising Challenge of Food Security By Barry Desker

Synopsis

Demand
for food is expected to increase, outpacing supply. As this situation
worsens in the years ahead, the world will be burdened by the growing
problem of food security. Expect more debate on this front in the years
to come.

Commentary

THE
WORLD is being haunted again by the spectre of a global food shortage.
Demand for food over the next decade is expected to increase by one per
cent annually but global food productivity gains have declined from two
per cent between 1970 and 2000 to one percent today and continuing to
decline.

A 2011 study reported that the world had consumed more
than it had produced for seven out of the past eight years. These
concerns will lead to growing attention to the nexus between food, water
and energy resources, especially as climate change is expected to have
an increasing impact globally.

Need for integrated approach to food security policy

Nineteenth
century economists struggled with the Malthusian dilemma: as
populations rose, it was assumed that a forced return to subsistence
agriculture would act as a check on population growth. The reality was
that the opening of new agricultural land, technological innovation and
higher yielding crops resulted in a capacity to feed an ever growing
population.

However, as once autarkic economies such as China and
India have opened to global trade and more wealthy societies are eating
more protein, consuming more calories and enjoying more varied diets in
recent years, there is growing concern with the fragility of the global
food system. These concerns were highlighted by the spike in food
prices and disruptions in food supply during the 2007-2008 global food
crisis.

My colleagues at the RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional
Security Studies have emphasised that robustness in food security
systems is critical and that governments need to work with the private
sector and other key stakeholders. Instead of piecemeal strategies, an
integrated and holistic approach to policy formulation and
implementation is critical to deal with the four dimensions in food
security: availability, physical access, economic access and
utilisation.

Although agricultural issues appear distant from an
urbanised Singapore, food security is politically sensitive precisely
because we are dependent on international markets for our food supply.
Sharp increases in the price of key food imports, export bans by major
food suppliers and difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies could
have significant domestic ramifications.

Three trends to watch

Three trends warrant attention.

Firstly,
over the next decade, rapid urbanisation will increase the problem of
managing food production. In Asia, major cities such as Jakarta, Bangkok
and Yangon are located in fertile rice growing regions. Urban sprawl is
taking over some of the most fertile lands in the surrounding
countryside as rural migration to urban centres occurs. Rapidly
increasing urban populations will lead to growing pressures on
governments to curb food price rises, undermining the incentive for
rural populations to increase food production. This phenomenon is
replicated around the world.

Secondly, this is often accompanied
by mistaken agricultural policies such as Indonesia’s encouragement
under President Soeharto of rice consumption in the islands of eastern
Indonesia. This led to shifts in food preference by the local
population, even though these areas are better suited to growing root
crops such as cassava. Elsewhere, food exporters like Argentina
implemented export controls when local supply shortages occurred as
farmers responded to global price increases.

This resulted in
food importing countries seeking long term supply contracts and
negotiating purchases of agricultural land in poverty-stricken
economies. In recent years, this has been a significant cause of unrest
in African and Asian countries such as Mozambique, Zambia, Myanmar and
Cambodia as Chinese companies have purchased huge tracts of agricultural
land. At the same time, price support schemes such as Thailand’s
above-market purchases of rice produced rice mountains as the government
is reluctant to sell on world markets at a substantial loss.

Thirdly,
there is a negative impact on global food supply as major grain
exporters such as the United States, Canada, Argentina and Brazil
encourage biofuel production through high government subsidies. The
diversion of grain production to produce biofuels is occurring at a time
when there is rising demand for protein and cereals by a growing middle
class globally. This “fuel/grains” trade-off will lead to grain prices
fluctuating in global markets at prices higher than current levels.

Energy and food security nexus

Although
it was earlier anticipated that energy security and food security would
be competing objectives, the rise of the shale oil and gas revolution
has changed the global outlook. The US will soon be self-sufficient in
oil and natural gas, Australia could rival Qatar as an exporter of gas
and Europe is re-thinking its opposition to exploiting its shale
resources.

Questions are being raised whether biofuel policies
established as a response to energy supply panics will be re-thought as
governments become aware of the negative impact on food supply. There is
a policy lag as farmers will continue to push for biofuel subsidies
even though the rationale for such subsidies has disappeared. In the US,
for example, 30 to 40 per cent of the corn crop is diverted to biofuels
annually and the influential American farm lobby will seek the
retention of current subsidies.

We should expect greater
attention to food supply over the next decade. A critical issue will be
water management as agriculture uses 70per cent of global freshwater
resources, primarily through the farming of livestock. With rising
incomes, there is a shift to meat-based diets, especially in East Asia,
leading to rising demand for meat products.

The issue of water
management will assume growing importance as water scarcity will be a
constraint in expanding food production. Pricing is a critical issue.
Most governments charge farmers 10 to 20 per cent of the price paid by
industrial users or households for water consumption. This leads to
sub-optimal use of scarce water resources such as the growing of
water-intensive crops in semi-desert conditions. With water scarcity,
conflicts over access to water between countries as well as between
farmers and ranchers within states will also attract attention.

Challenge of food-price inflationIf
food-price inflation occurs, the greatest impact will be felt by food
import dependent countries like Egypt and Bangladesh. There will be
pressure to increase food subsidies for basic foodstuffs but their
governments will find it impossible to accede. Rising powers like China
and India will face similar pressures but could shield themselves
through policies of self-sufficiency, increasing subsidies for
vulnerable groups within their domestic population and imposing export
bans to stabilise domestic prices.

Globally, the challenge of
higher food prices will result in innovation and experimentation.
Advances in molecular biology such as the transfer of genes from one
plant species to another to produce crops with new or improved features
offer the most promise for significant increases in food production.
Although there is strong resistance to genetically modified (GM) crops,
especially from the European Union and Japan, food price pressures will
lead to greater acceptance elsewhere.

There are already
commercially available herbicide and insect-resistant soybean, cotton,
corn and potato species and on-going research on rice and canola is
likely to result in commercial applications within the next five years.
Salt-tolerant and drought-tolerant crops, micro-irrigation systems and
hydroponic greenhouse technologies are significant new directions of
research while techniques aimed at reducing inputs such as seed,
fertiliser and water will reduce the negative environmental impact of
farming and increase yields.

Concurrently, automation of farming
processes will lead to greater efficiency, reduce manpower demands and
lower costs of production. As there are major losses during post-harvest
storage and transportation, significant increases in food crops for
consumption could be obtained through better storage facilities and
greater efficiency in food distribution and supply chain networks.

Policymakers
and observers of international affairs tend to focus on ‘hard’ security
issues such as great power rivalry, nuclear competition, territorial
conflicts and competing maritime claims. But issues like food, energy
and water security affect many more people and have an immediate
domestic impact. The challenge of ensuring food security will command
attention over the next decade as we live in an era where productivity
gains in food production are falling and food surpluses are declining.
Expect more debate on this issue.

Barry
Desker is Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
(RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. A version of this commentary
first appeared in Today.

Americans WILL NOT Experience Syrian War In Comfort Of Homes! NSNBC ALERTS

Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:08

Americans are unprepared for the strong likelihood of a pending
regional war, global economic collapse and World War III, according to
an exclusive interview with political analyst and NSNBC’s
editor-in-chief, who shed new insights from insiders on the presently
pending attack on Syria.

“If any U.S. citizen believes he can experience a Syria war from the
‘comfort’ of his home, they are terribly mistaken,” stated NSNBC’s Dr.
Cristof Lehmann in a Skype interview with Deborah Dupré. “People need to
understand that.”

“And the media are silent,” he said about upcoming chaos at home.

The decision to attack Syria will be made within hours, Israeli media
report, noting that it will be carried out – in a limited scope – by a
broad alliance of Western, regional, and Arab countries.

Israel’s Channel 10 television station reported, by way of its
Washington correspondent, that US President Barack Obama will decide on
a military strike against Syria very soon, if not within a few hours.

“An attack will most likely be launched over the weekend, not least
because, as far as I know, it is a public holiday in the USA, where
people drink and could not care less,” said Lehmann, in his European
base.

That’s how Obama signed the nationally opposed NDAA 2012 — on New Years Eve as Americans partied, making the nation officially under military dictatorship, martial law, a police state. According to Lehmann, the next phase of the Obama regime’s human rights abuses is likely to bring even more suffering.
Born 1958 in West Germany, Lehmann was Advisor for Research in
Psycho-traumatology to Yassir Arafat. He is a survivor of the Sabra
Shatila Massace in 1982. His holds a doctoral degree in Clinical
Psychology and was advisor to Joshua Nkomo on the Impact of Torture and
Psychological Trauma on Conflict Solution and Reconciliation in
Zimbabwe´s Politics in 1986-1990.
Lehmann was also Advisor to Nelson Mandela on Social Politics, Public
Mental Health and the Effect of Psychological Trauma on Peace and
Reconciliation in 1994-1997.
A practicing clinical psychologist, Lehmann has been actively
advocating Palestinians right to statehood and self determination. In
2011 he began writing articles to contribute to breaking what he
perceives as “The Embargo on Truth” by founding and running an independent webmedia: http://nsnbc.wordpress.com.Background of Fossil Fuel Pipeline Battle
Lehmann’s rationale for his concern about Americans at home in the US
was provided in a “very, very brief” explanation, beginning with the
U.S. being “outcompeted” on a pipeline deal.
“The entire situation began with the world’s largest known gas resources in the Persian Gulf, shared by Qatar and Iran. The Nabucco pipeline,
intended by the EU and US to provide an alterntive to Russia’s near
monopoly on supplying gas to Europe, was not selected to transport gas
from the Qatar/Iran field. The Russian South Stream and North Stream
deliver gas to Europe.
“IF” the Iran, Iraq, Syria pipeline would have been completed, then
Europe would, for the coming 100 – 120 years receive more than 45% of
all its gas from Russian and Iranian sources, according to Lehmann.
“ISRAEL is thinking, ‘Hmmmm, let me see, what impact does that have on
European Middle East policy?’ and so do many US Senators etc..
“THEREFORE, in 2007, QATAR sent USD 10 billion (not joking – the
equivalent of what it would cost to build the Iran, Iraq, Syria
pipeline) to the Turkish foreign minister Davotoglu.
“In 2007, Turkey began organizing the Turkish and Syrian Muslim Brotherhood for a war on Syria with that Qatari Money.
“Then came the arrest of 600 people in Turkey — 300 officers, scholars,
opposition leaders, members of parliament — the ERGENKON plot, to
assure the loyalty of the Turkish military.
“Last month, the Nabucco pipeline project, that was to have transported
gas from the Caspian Sea to Europe, in order to bypass Russia, was cancelled.
“Nabucco-West, that was to have carried gas from Turkey to Austria,
through Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, was the only remaining part of
the original project. At the end of June, it was announced this project
would also be dropped.
“With the Nabucco pipeline failing, Romania and the Republic of Moldova began their own pipeline. Yesterday, they celbrated its inauguration connecting the Romanian city of Iasi to the Moldavian Ungheni.
“Now, we are in a situation where the USA, UK and France are bringing
the EU and Russia on a course towards a European war over Energy
Security,” Lehmann said.Regional War, Global Economic Collapse, WWIII
“Behind it are, Israel, USA, UK (and France because it was promised
that the USA and UK would help France to keep Germany off its back,
because Germany demanded a change in the Africa policy of France.)”
In other words, we are heading for: 1) a regional war, that may well
spread into Europe; 2) a global economic collapse, and a permanent
backwardation of the gold market and then, 3) WWIII, according to
Lehmann.
“THE REALITY IS, A SARAYEVO LIKE SITUATION, WHERE THE EVENTS BEGIN
CONTROLLING THE DECISIONS OF THE POLICY MAKES” Lehmann capitalized in
the Skype interview.
How confident is he in his analysis on those upcoming three events?
“75%, 65 conservatively,” he responded.
He is “far from the only one who assesses the situation like this,” he also emphasized.
Meanwhile, Americans think they are safe – “Ho-hum, another war.”
“Exactly,” Lehmann responded, adding, “but this one will bite.”
The hardest bite will be “when the gold market goes into permanent backwardation,” according to Lehmann.

China already said it does not want a currency war but is prepared for it.

Syria and the Limits of Comparison

By Robert D. Kaplan
Because so many war plans simply do not survive the reality of war
itself, each war is a unique universe unto its own and thus comparisons
with previous wars, while useful, may also prove illusory. One of the
many wrong assumptions about the Second Gulf War before it started was
that it would somehow be like the First Gulf War, in which the
pessimists had been humiliated by the ease of the victory. Indeed, the
Second Gulf War unfolded in vastly different ways, this time proving the
pessimists right. That is why the recent media refrain comparing a
military operation in Syria with the one in Kosovo in 1999 worries me.
There are profound differences.
Syria has a population ten times the size of Kosovo's in 1999.
Because everything in Syria is on a much vaster scale, deciding the
outcome by military means could be that much harder.
Kosovo sustained violence and harsh repression at the hands of
Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, which was met with a low-intensity
separatist campaign by the Kosovo Liberation Army. Violence was
widespread but not nearly on the scale of Syria's. Syria is in the midst
of a full-fledged civil war. The toppling of Milosevic, moreover,
carried much less risk of ever-expanding anarchy than does the toppling
of Syrian ruler Bashar al Assad.
Kosovo was more or less contained within the southern Balkans, with
relatively limited chance for a spillover -- as it turned out -- into
neighboring countries and territories. Full-scale sectarian anarchy in
Syria threatens to destabilize a wider region.
The Kosovo Liberation Army may have been a nasty bunch by some
accounts, with criminal elements. But it was not a threat to the United
States like the transnational jihadists currently operating in Syria.
For President Bill Clinton to risk bringing to power the Kosovo
Liberation Army was far less of a concern than President Barack Obama
possibly helping to midwife to power a Sunni jihadist regime.
Kosovo did not have a complex of chemical weapons facilities scattered throughout its territory as Syria does, with all the military and logistical headaches of trying to neutralize them.
The Kosovo war campaign did not have to countenance a strong and
feisty Russia, which at the time was reeling from Boris Yeltsin's
incompetent, anarchic rule. Vladimir Putin, who has significant equities
in al Assad's Syria, may do everything in his power to undermine a U.S.
attack. Though, it must be said, Putin's options should Obama opt for a
significant military campaign are limited within Syria itself. But
Putin can move closer to Iran by leaving the sanctions regime, and
ratchet-up Russia's anti-American diplomacy worldwide more effectively
than Yeltsin ever wanted to, or was capable of.
The Kosovo war did not engage Iran as this war must. For all of the
missiles that America can fire, it does not have operatives on the
ground like Iran has. Neither will the United States necessarily have
the patience and fortitude to prosecute a lengthy and covert
ground-level operation as Iran might for years to come, and already has.
A weakened or toppled al Assad is bad for Iran, surely, but it does not
altogether signal that America will therefore receive a good result
from this war. A wounded Iran might race even faster toward a nuclear
option. It is a calculated risk.
The Kosovo war inflicted significant pain on Serbian civilians
through airstrikes, but the Syrian population has already been pummeled
by a brutal war for two years now, and so it is problematic whether
airstrikes in this case can inflict that much more psychological pain on
the parts of the population either still loyal or indifferent to the
regime.
The goal in Kosovo was to limit Serbia's geographic influence and to
ignite a chain of events that would lead to Milosevic's ouster. Those
goals were achieved: Milosevic was forced from power in the fall of
2000, largely because of a chain of events stemming from that war. His
ouster, as I wrote in The New York Times on Oct. 6, 2000, meant
the de facto death of the last ruling Communist Party in Europe, even
if in its final years it had adopted national-fascism as a tactic.
Because the war was in significant measure a result of the efforts of a
single individual, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, it
demonstrated how individuals can dramatically alter history for the
better.
Kosovo thus symbolized the power of human agency over impersonal
forces in order to wrest a victory for human rights. This is a popular
cause among liberal journalists and intellectuals, as is the desire to do something
to punish the massive human rights violations of the al Assad regime.
The comparison between Kosovo and Syria follows from that. But it is a
flawed comparison: Elegantly toppling Milosevic incurred no negative
side effects. Toppling al Assad could lead to a power center in the
Levant as friendly to transnational jihadists as the one in
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was in the late 1990s until 2001.
Of course, the Obama administration will try to calibrate its
military effort in a way to avoid further jihadi chaos in Syria. But
even with overwhelming firepower, it is not necessarily in control.
Whereas ending Milosevic's rule meant an end to ethnic cleansing, it is
far from certain that sectarian carnage would end with al Assad's
demise; it might possibly even intensify, with Sunnis exacting revenge
on a weakened and cornered Alawite community.
Obama faces a dilemma more extreme than the one Clinton faced in
Kosovo. If he chooses limited military strikes to send a message against
the use of chemical weapons, he risks looking weak, especially
following the powerful rhetoric employed by his secretary of state, John
Kerry. If he chooses regime change -- while not calling it that -- he
threatens to unleash a jihadi nightmare. He may try a middle option
calibrated to seriously erode al Assad's power base while sending a
message to Russia and Iran to help him negotiate a stable transfer of
authority in Damascus -- something that might yet open up a wider
diplomatic process with Iran. But that is obviously very difficult to
do.
Keep another thing in mind about Kosovo. At that time, the United
States had not been in a long ground war for a quarter-century and thus
the American people were not weary of war. Even so, Clinton rightly
calculated that the public would not tolerate casualties on the ground
in a war that did not involve a naked American interest. But the
American public is now tottering from more than a decade of bloody
ground war, and so Obama has even less leeway than Clinton, even as
Syria presents a greater military challenge than Kosovo.
So far, Obama has handled the Middle East tolerably well. He has
reduced and ended ground force commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq,
while avoiding quagmires elsewhere in the face of regional change and
chaos. This is in keeping with the leadership of a global maritime power
that has serious military commitments in Asia and elsewhere, even as
its energy dependency on the Middle East is on the wane. But Obama now
faces a defining event that will test his commitment to keep America out
of regional quicksand while being able to wield considerable power in
the region at the same time. If Obama prosecutes a significant military
operation, one thing is certain: Syria will be its own war for the
United States with its own narrative, for better or worse.

The Satanic & Pedophile Practices of the English Royal Family, Part 13 rating, 3 votes3 rating, 3 votes (+3 rating, 3 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

August 26, 2013 in Resistance

by bubul

The elite pedophile ring in England isn’t a myth unfortunately. In the 80’s we heard of a pedophile ring in Kincora Boys Home in Belfast created by the MI6. Shortly afterwards it was the orphanages in Wales. Then those of London, Scotland & finally Jimmy Saville went down. Today everything is done to cover up the biggest scandal of all: The implication of the royal family in this pedophile ring. So we’re going to talk about Satanism, pedophile crimes & a strange affair of a ceremony going wrong in the south of France.

In 2012 a certain Chris Jones declares his two brothers, Adrian & Leander, have been assassinated because they were about to expose that elite’s pedophile ring & Miss Margaret Thatcher. Chris Jones told that when he was a kid he was forced into sexual intercourses with a High Court judge & a cop.

Jones also denounced John Allen, manager of a Welsh orphanage, where many scandals were revealed recently. Adrian Jones had been a resident in Bryn Alyn & in 1992 he threatened John Allen to give him up if he wasn’t paying him a financial compensation [1]. He was killed on April the 17th 1992 in the criminal arson of his house.

In 1995, Chris & Leander testified against Allen during a Court hearing. Soon thereafter he died of an overdose.

Allen was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 1995 for the aggressions committed between 1972 & 1983. Then during the Waterhouse investigation on the rapes in the Welsh orphanages, he again was involved in 2003 but finally escaped the 36 accusations for abuses in the homes he was in charge of.

He arrived in the orphanages business in the middle of the 60’s, after starting in the hotel trade & in 1969 he opened the Bryn Alyn Community residential schools, a chain of orphanages & homes for children. The first one functioned with 11 people not trained to take care of children.

84784545_o

At one point, Allen was managing about 50 orphanages in northern Wales & elsewhere like London & Brighton, & about 500 children stayed there.

The business was very fruitful since in the 80’s the State was giving 15.000£ per year for a child [2]. In the middle of the 80’s the numbers rose to 2,8 millions of pounds per year for a benefice of 80 to 90,000£, but Allen received no less than 204,800£ per year, owning a yacht on the French Riviera, where he possessed a villa sold in urgency for 200.000£.

In 1992, Allen lost his agreements & the schools were shut down in 1997, following a disastrous management & important debts.

172 people testified being victims in Allen’s orphanages. Of course some of them also denounced Allen as a pedophile (28 of them were finally heard). Leander Jones was one of the victims. He became a prostitute in London just after leaving the home. At 17YO, he went to Amsterdam. He testified during the procedure against Allen, but died of an overdose before the beginning of the trial in 1995. Would you believe that Allen disappeared between the allegations of Leander & his death, only to come back & deny everything during the trial?

Finally only denunciations for sexual aggressions were accepted & no rapes, even though many testimonies matched.

Already in 1982, Allen was heard by the police about abuses committed in the care of his homes, but nothing resulted out of it. & already at the time a victim said Allen was paying him to keep him silenced. Logically, we can ask ourselves whether those huge debts were not directly linked to these blackmails from his many victims.

The Lost in care report considered the abuses committed by Allen were repeated & extensive. It estimated that Allen pushed towards pedophile behaviors the homes staff. Children were sent in orgies, prostituted in hostels & threatened. Certain victims were raped by the managers & the educators of the homes, but also by their friends. Of course no complaints had any results & no enquiry was made when powerful pedophiles such as magistrates or cops were involved.

84784689_o

[1] Allen explained during the trial he had payed between 7 to 8.000£ to Leander & Adrian .

[2] The most difficult children payed more, Allen brought far more children into his homes than what they could actually sustain. Same with the urgency placements. According to this pecuniary logic (which is the same in France where all those private associations are making their doe on the children’s backs… While advising Courts to place the children), the children usually stayed about two to three years in Allen’s homes.

“Humanitarian” Intervention in Syria Will INCREASE Civilian Deaths

As a conflict actor weakens relative to its adversary, it employs
increasingly violent tactics toward the civilian population as a means
of reshaping the strategic landscape to its benefit. The reason for this
is twofold. First, declining capabilities increase resource needs at
the moment that extractive capacity is in decline. Second, declining
capabilities inhibit control and policing, making less violent means of
defection deterrence more difficult. As both resource extraction
difficulties and internal threats increase, actors’ incentives for
violence against the population increase. To the extent that biased
military interventions shift the balance of power between conflict
actors, we argue that they alter actor incentives to victimize
civilians. Specifically, intervention should reduce the level of
violence employed by the supported faction and increase the level
employed by the opposed faction. We test these arguments using data on
civilian casualties and armed intervention in intrastate conflicts from
1989 to 2005. Our results support our expectations, suggesting that
interventions shift the power balance and affect the levels of violence
employed by combatants.

In fact, they find that military interventions in favor of the rebel
faction (as opposed to pro-government or neutral interventions) tend to
increase government killings of civilians by about 40% (see Figure 2
below from p. 656).

From their conclusion:

Supporting a faction’s quest to vanquish its adversary may have
the unintended consequence of inciting the adversary to more intense
violence against the population. Thus, third parties with interests in
stability should bear in mind the potential for the costly consequences
of countering murderous groups. Potential interveners should heed these
conclusions when designing intervention strategies and tailor their
interventions to include components specifically designed to protect
civilians from reprisals. Such strategies could include
stationing forces within vulnerable population centers,
temporarily relocating susceptible populations to safe havens that
are more distant from the conflict zone, and supplying sufficient ground
forces to be consistent with such policies. These actions could fulfill
broader interests in societal stability in addition to interests in
countering an organization on geopolitical grounds. Successful policies
will thus not only counter murderous factions but will explicitly seek
to protect civilian populations.

This
emergency message was released by Lyndon LaRouche this morning. Please circulate
widely. Mike Billington

LAROUCHE
OPPOSES ANY MILITARY ACTION; THE

DANGER
OF THERMONUCLEAR WAR IS TOO GRAVE

August
28, 2013

1. Any
U.S. attack on Syria has the potential to trigger a larger war, which could lead
to a thermonuclear war and extinction. This threat is so serious that any
other considerations in favor of U.S. military action against Syria must be
rejected due to this overwhelming danger. Claims that the Administration
has “understandings” with Russia and Iran to prevent such an escalation must be
dismissed as unreliable, particularly when weighed against the threat of
military action leading to world war and the likelihood of the use of
thermonuclear weapons.

2.The
Syrian events must be seen from the standpoint that the world system today is
dominated by an imperial system with historical roots in Europe dating back to
the sacking of Troy and the emergence of the Roman Empire. The sickness of
Europe which prevails to this day in the form of the modern Anglo-Dutch global
monetarist system dominates the habits of the world. The British Crown is
on record promoting a policy of mass population reduction from the current level
of 7 billion people down to 1-2 billion. President Obama is a tool of this
international group, represented in the United States by the Wall Street
combination. Thermonuclear war must be prevented absolutely, and a
military strike against Syria, no matter how limited in scope, brings the world
substantially closer to such a war.

3.The
present Anglo-Dutch global financial system is headed ultimately towards a
general bankruptcy. It is coming soon, and this is driving a desperate
faction among the Anglo-Dutch to contemplate an escalation to global war.
The fact that there is serious movement in the United States and in other parts
of the world towards a Glass Steagall solution to the global bankruptcy collapse
is further driving Wall Street into a panic.

4.The
threatened consequences of a Syria strike add to the fact that there is no basis
in international law or U.S. Constitutional law for President Obama to launch
strikes against Syria. Defeat Obama on Syria and he will go ape. He
must be removed from office for cause and the fact that he is contemplating an
attack on Syria, knowing the potential consequences, is in itself sufficient
cause.

5.The
U.S. military has been decimated through more than a decade of long wars.
The logic of the U.S. buildup against Russia and China is moving the world
towards a Pacific thermonuclear war. Once the fuse is lit with even a
limited military strike against Syria, the situation immediately moves out of
control.

6.Prevent
this Syria attack at all costs, implement Glass Steagall immediately and new
prospects for global stability are immediately available. The United
States has the opportunity to partner with China. The world is a mess and
we need a factor of stability. The Chinese know that a further collapse of
Europe and the United States assures the collapse of China. Combine Glass
Steagall with a cooperative global crash effort to achieve fusion power and the
conditions driving the world to a war of extinction can be eliminated
altogether.

7.In
principle, this looming war can be stopped by a relatively small number of
people who understand how to carry out an effective flanking operation.
The logic of the current Obama policy trajectory is that, if you let it run its
course, we are in danger of thermonuclear war. Russia has been put in a
corner and any further actions can provoke an unrestrained response. So
far, Putin, although he is in a touchy situation, is acting with
restraint

The Obama administration on Thursday said it will not stand in the way of Colorado, Washington
and other states where voters have supported legalizing marijuana
either for medical or recreational use, as long as those states maintain
strict rules involving distribution of the drug.

In a memo sent Thursday to U.S. attorneys
in all 50 states, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole detailed the
administration’s new stance, even as he reiterated that marijuana
remains illegal under federal law.

Video

Irv Rosenfeld has received shipments of
marijuana cigarettes from the federal government for more than 30 years.
They’ve eased the impact of his rare illness and created some awkward
moments at airport security.

Approval of ballot measures in Colorado, Washington state put laws at odds with federal drug policy.

The memo directs federal prosecutors to focus their resources
on eight specific areas of enforcement, rather than targeting individual
marijuana users, which even President Obama has acknowledged is not the
best use of federal manpower. Those areas include preventing
distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of pot to
cartels and gangs, preventing sales to other states where the drug
remains illegal under state law, and stopping the growing of marijuana
on public lands.

A Justice Department official said that Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. had called the governors of Colorado and
Washington around noon Thursday to inform them of the administration’s
stance.

The official said Holder also told them that federal
prosecutors would be watching closely as the two states put in place a
regulatory framework for marijuana in their states, and that prosecutors
would be taking a “trust but verify” approach. The official said the
Justice Department reserves the right to revisit the issue.

Washington
state and Colorado last fall approved initiatives to decriminalize the
possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Those laws go beyond
provisions for the medical use of marijuana. The District and 18 states
have passed laws making it legal to manufacture, distribute and possess
marijuana for medicinal purposes.

“We’ve
got bigger fish to fry,” Obama said. “It would not make sense for us to
see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that
have determined that it’s legal.”

The issue has been percolating
since Obama took office, and he has repeatedly faced questions about the
tension between differing federal and state laws.

When the White
House created an online petition program called “We the People” in
2011, marijuana-related petitions were so prevalent that the
administration issued four responses to 13 petitions, which had garnered
hundreds of thousands of signatures.

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com